A simple question for theists

[Minimalist]

It seems that no theist answered my question properly. I'm not interested in responses saying God would never do that, or that God's implication is different. My question is simple. God is supposed to be the ultimate and perfect moral framework for everything. Therefore, in accordance with the situation of God telling someone that they 100% must kill someone, all theists should answer "yes, because God's intentions are perfect". If not, that is a contradiction of their beliefs.

"Thou shalt not murder" seems to apply. So, not murdering a person would in fact be obeying God. Since it is possible that your hypothetical personal instructions might be misunderstood, not originating from God, or a product of a mental defect, I would say not murdering is the right things to do. So, no dilemma, no contradiction.

I love the way you clowns twist your scrotums into pretzels trying to explain why your fucking "god" is such a piss-poor communicator.  Maybe you need a better "god?"

[downbeatplumb]

The god of the bible orders death and commits murder personally on a fairly regular basis. So it is established that god has ordered death in the bible. If you would not commit a murder ordered by god because of your morality you are admitting two things, firstly that god is not the arbiter of morality and second that your morality is superior to gods.

Book chapter and verse please..

(Where He orders Christian to murder people.)
[/quote]

Nowhere in the bible does your god address Christians, tis a jewish book.
You can find all the bits where he orders murder or commits it itself but I will mention some of the highlights,
The flood
Soddom
Gomorrah
Abrahams son.
The Passover
The Amalekites

Now jesus did quite a bit of threatening gods wrath in the new testament but this seems to be more like someone saying their dad is tougher than your dad.

Look it up, he was a git. (or written as a git by whoever made him up, really it makes no never mind whether he was an actual person or a figment, the results are the same)

[RoadRunner79]

---

...killing an innocent person goes against Natural Law. Meaning it goes against the way our world works, because that is how God created our world to work. Thus we have an inherent understanding that directly killing an innocent person is wrong.

Exactly that. At the same time, The OP's hypothetical is that you believe the person is 100% innocent. As fallen creatures, we must admit to our own limitations - there is no 100% and so while you may believe the person is innocent isn't it also possible that you are not in command of all the facts and must trust that God's judgment is just?

As for Abraham, remember that God did't actually have Abraham kill his son, but was merely testing him. Furthermore, I personally find it hard to believe that story actually happened in the literal way it was written...Did God's voice sound from the sky and tell Abraham to kill his son, and then tell him not to? My guess would be no...as a Catholic, I am free to take a literal or allegorical approach to the Old Testament stories. I tend to lean to the latter. 

As you know, I feel people should be careful to discern between what should be taken figuratively as opposed to literal versus. In this case, Gen 22, figurative elements are clearly present, however, I see no reason to take this story as pure allegory.

Lastly, Christianity is defined by the New Testament.

---

Sorry, but I must protest. The NT cannot be divorced from the OT. As per my earlier citation, on the road to Emmasus, the resurrected Christ opened the eyes of his disciples to show them how the Law and Prophets spoke of Him. Or in John 5:46 where Jesus says "if you had believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me..." Or the story of the eunuch reading Isaiah and not understanding it until Peter explained it to him.  Christianity is defined by both the NT and the OT together as a seamless narrative.

I gave kudos mostly for that last part. While I don't believe that the doctrine of inerrancy is quite necessary for the Christian faith. You cannot remove it from it's history. In is one story, with one God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The flood

Not innocent - "Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways."

Soddom
Gomorrah

Not innocent - "Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me."

Abrahams son.

Commanded but didn't allow to be killed.

The Passover

There may have been some innocents but cannot be considered apart from divine compensation.

The Amalekites

Mostly, biblical trash-talk. In later chapters the Amalekites still exist, so in the end not everyone was actually killed.

[masterofpuppets]

It seems that no theist answered my question properly. I'm not interested in responses saying God would never do that, or that God's implication is different. My question is simple. God is supposed to be the ultimate and perfect moral framework for everything. Therefore, in accordance with the situation of God telling someone that they 100% must kill someone, all theists should answer "yes, because God's intentions are perfect". If not, that is a contradiction of their beliefs.

It's because you don't understand. 

As a person who believes in God, I cannot separate Him from reality or from morality. Because I believe He created both. I believe He created this world in such a way that directly killing an innocent person goes against Natural Law. Meaning it goes against the way our world works, because that is how God created our world to work. Thus we have an inherent understanding that directly killing an innocent person is wrong. 

That is what I believe about God. If God told me to kill an innocent person, I would think "well, obviously everything I thought I knew about God is completely wrong, and this entity who is speaking to me is not the God that I thought I was worshiping." If that happened, literally nothing would be what I thought it was. And so I would stick to the only thing I know for sure - myself and my own instincts. My instincts tell me that I shouldn't kill innocent people, and so I would follow that.  

As for Abraham, remember that God did't actually have Abraham kill his son, but was merely testing him. Furthermore, I personally find it hard to believe that story actually happened in the literal way it was written. Was there a highly religious Jewish man named Abraham who had a son? I believe so. But did the story happen exactly the way it was written? Did God's voice sound from the sky and tell Abraham to kill his son, and then tell him not to? My guess would be no. Perhaps the way it was written was allegorically to show that this man, Abraham, was tested by God in some way during his life. But not necessarily that things happened literally as they are written in this Old Testament story. I can't speak for all Christians, but as a Catholic, I am free to take a literal or allegorical approach to the Old Testament stories. I tend to lean to the latter. 

Lastly, Christianity is defined by the New Testament. The gospels, the teachings of Christ, etc. Christ clearly taught us that killing is wrong. And if you're Catholic, the main authority is the Church, not the bible. The Church teaches that the direct killing of an innocent person is a very serious sin that goes against God. That's what I believe.

What you are essentially expressing here is that you do not trust God if he tells you to do something you feel is wrong. Isn't that contradictory to your belief that God is the perfect moral standard for everything? If you claim that God is just "testing" you, how would you be sure that's the case?

Apart from that, I generally find your answer quite insightful.

[Minimalist]

Mostly, biblical trash-talk. In later chapters the Amalekites still exist, so in the end not everyone was actually killed.

Just an example of piss-poor editing.

[Catholic_Lady]

It's because you don't understand. 

As a person who believes in God, I cannot separate Him from reality or from morality. Because I believe He created both. I believe He created this world in such a way that directly killing an innocent person goes against Natural Law. Meaning it goes against the way our world works, because that is how God created our world to work. Thus we have an inherent understanding that directly killing an innocent person is wrong. 

That is what I believe about God. If God told me to kill an innocent person, I would think "well, obviously everything I thought I knew about God is completely wrong, and this entity who is speaking to me is not the God that I thought I was worshiping." If that happened, literally nothing would be what I thought it was. And so I would stick to the only thing I know for sure - myself and my own instincts. My instincts tell me that I shouldn't kill innocent people, and so I would follow that.  

As for Abraham, remember that God did't actually have Abraham kill his son, but was merely testing him. Furthermore, I personally find it hard to believe that story actually happened in the literal way it was written. Was there a highly religious Jewish man named Abraham who had a son? I believe so. But did the story happen exactly the way it was written? Did God's voice sound from the sky and tell Abraham to kill his son, and then tell him not to? My guess would be no. Perhaps the way it was written was allegorically to show that this man, Abraham, was tested by God in some way during his life. But not necessarily that things happened literally as they are written in this Old Testament story. I can't speak for all Christians, but as a Catholic, I am free to take a literal or allegorical approach to the Old Testament stories. I tend to lean to the latter. 

Lastly, Christianity is defined by the New Testament. The gospels, the teachings of Christ, etc. Christ clearly taught us that killing is wrong. And if you're Catholic, the main authority is the Church, not the bible. The Church teaches that the direct killing of an innocent person is a very serious sin that goes against God. That's what I believe.

What you are essentially expressing here is that you do not trust God if he tells you to do something you feel is wrong. Isn't that contradictory to your belief that God is the perfect moral standard for everything? If you claim that God is just "testing" you, how would you be sure that's the case?

Apart from that, I generally find your answer quite insightful.

Again, I trust the God that I believe is real. The God that is Himself goodness and love, and who created morality through establishing Natural Law in this world.

IF God wanted me to kill an innocent person, I would know that this is not the God that I thought existed and that I worship and that I trust. And for reasons I explained above, nothing would make sense to me at that point. It wouldn't simply be God wanting me to kill someone. It would be "Holy crap, everything I thought I knew about the world and about reality has been turned on its head!"

It's much deeper and more complicated than you're giving us credit for.

[Harry Nevis]

How is that murder?  The fact that god decided he should die is not the highest of judgements?

The question specifically said "innocent".

The question was, "in your eyes". Are your eyes keener than gods?

[Brian37]

What you are essentially expressing here is that you do not trust God if he tells you to do something you feel is wrong. Isn't that contradictory to your belief that God is the perfect moral standard for everything? If you claim that God is just "testing" you, how would you be sure that's the case?

Apart from that, I generally find your answer quite insightful.

Again, I trust the God that I believe is real. The God that is Himself goodness and love, and who created morality through establishing Natural Law in this world.

IF God wanted me to kill an innocent person, I would know that this is not the God that I thought existed and that I worship and that I trust. And for reasons I explained above, nothing would make sense to me at that point. It wouldn't simply be God wanting me to kill someone. It would be "Holy crap, everything I thought I knew about the world and about reality has been turned on its head!"

It's much deeper and more complicated than you're giving us credit for.

Yes we get that you believe so what? Most humans never bother to ask themselves why they feel the need to believe in any god/s deities/spirits. 

10,000 years of written claims of all sorts of claims worldwide in our species history. Not what, but why do you feel the need to believe? Do you think your life would be different? Do you think you'll suddenly burst into flames? Do you really think life after you die will feel any different than it did before you were born 5 million years ago? Do you think if you suddenly realized there is no such thing you wont be able to feel love or do good?

50 million to 60 million humans on average die worldwide from everything per year. That is half a billion in 10 years and 1 billion deaths every 20 years. If you don't mourn the death of a tree or bush or fish or cockroach what makes you think humans are any different? Why would this allegedly all powerful being give much more time to other species prior to ours for billions of years? Why put humans into evolution only 150,000 years ago in ignorance with no ability to even write? Then wait until only 10,000 years ago to suddenly say something? Then even up to today have humans murder over these competing claims? Seems totally inefficient to me if one wants to claim an "all powerful" being,

Seems to me science is pointing to all this being here with no help, and that if we want to extend our finite ride we should be relying on other humans, not old myths.

[Drich]

2 Tim chapter 3 starting @ 10 and going though chapter 4 ending at 8
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

There is a whole set up to this back of scripture. I do not understand why the chapter ended early/mid point. Anyway the crux of what is being discussed is where timothy can find the discernement he may need to navigate all the negitiv influences Paul is writing him about. This can be found in verse 16

16 All Scripture is given by God. (not just OT, as we live under the NT we are responsible for that as it has since been deemed Christian Scripture.) And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. 17 Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.

17 kinda sums it all up. If we seek to do a good work under God/a Work God would have us do, then it must by the book/scripture it must be done.

This is also supported in chapter 4:3 forward in that Paul identifies that their will be a time when people will want to stop listening the truth Timothy has derived from the scriptures, but Paul encourages him to stay the course even thought people aren't going to like what he has to say.

better yet in:
2peter 1:19 through the end of chapter 3

Peter illustrates by identifying false teachers of his day by using scripture against what these false teachers do and say. by the scripture he is able to identify several different sins from which these teachers build their ministries from.

So from Paul the over all "If you want to do a good deed for God a deed in which God has purposed for you (meaning along the lines of a life calling) then it is from the scripture (ALL OF IT NOT JUST THE OT) can you find ALL The info you need to COMPLETE Your task.

Then Peter delivers a sermon using what paul said to identify what plagued his own church/ministry. And He showed his congregation how 'false teachers' do not measure up against scripture.

First of all, none of this is God speaking, so no He didn't tell us not to accept any further revelations.  The passage in 2 Timothy indicates that the bible is sufficient, not that it is complete.  That's your own conclusion which you are adding to the text.  The text doesn't say anything about it being a complete set of God's revelations.  Since God does in fact order the killing of people in the bible, it's strictly your interpretation that the ordering of another killing would be contrary to what is in the bible.  In that I think you are wrong.  You simply used this 'no new revelations' line as a dodge to avoid answering the question.  Scripture doesn't back you up.

I beg to differ. "All scripture is God breathed..." Or did you purposely ignore that bit in 2tim 3:16???
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

I know depending on your translation you will get sufficient, but the passage I left you intentionally says it is "useful" and then tells you how it is use full. In that In order to The good works God has prepared for you to do over the span of your life you will need this book in every aspect of it. So again and in short if you are looking to do the Good God has set aside for you to do it is from the bible that will define it. IF your intentions is to do The Good God have you do then the scripture is indeed complete "as you will have everything you need to do EVERY good work." That's if and again you are serving the God of the bible and the work He have you do. For anyother purpose you are right the bible is not complete.

All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.

The text doesn't say anything about it being a complete set of God's revelations.

 
In Fact it does. The very end of 17 it says the scripture is everything.. what is complete besides all you need? If the scripture is all we need to do every Good deed the Lord has prepared for us, then what else is needed if as you say the word/scripture is incomplete?

Since God does in fact order the killing of people in the bible,

No mam, OT shows God commanding to Kill.. We do not live under that OT covenant. We live under the New Covenant, and as such do not have one single example of God commanding we kill anyone under this covenant.

it's strictly your interpretation that the ordering of another killing would be contrary to what is in the bible.

Simply show me some book chapter and verse and I will happily reconsider my position on NT 'Killing.' Otherwise acknowledge there isn't a NT precedent that allows for NT killings.

 In that I think you are wrong.

 without scriptural precedent it really doesn't matter what you 'think.' We/Nonjews can only worship God through the covenant of the NT. In order to do so we must have scriptural example/backing to vet a rule or method of worship.. otherwise it is not the God of the bible we worship is it?

You simply used this 'no new revelations' line as a dodge to avoid answering the question.Scripture doesn't back you up.

Then simply rephrase the question. if scripture back you up would you kill on God's behalf.

Otherwise the word is pretty solvent on one's ability to worship God only using the bible/scripture to do it.

---

"Thou shalt not murder" seems to apply. So, not murdering a person would in fact be obeying God. Since it is possible that your hypothetical personal instructions might be misunderstood, not originating from God, or a product of a mental defect, I would say not murdering is the right things to do. So, no dilemma, no contradiction.

I love the way you clowns twist your scrotums into pretzels trying to explain why your fucking "god" is such a piss-poor communicator.  Maybe you need a better "god?"

What's to understand?

Love God with all of your Heart, MIND Spirit and strength.

So people's minds allow them a deeper understanding than others, so for them they are to extend that love to the mind's capacity.

Like wise If a man's strength is greater than that man is to work Harder for God.

And so one and so fourth with Heart and Spirit.

This put the church constantly going in 4 different directions at once. To the single minded (people like you) what we do looks like a mess, and guys like you rarly get it.

God gets it even if you or sometime ourselves do not.

---

Nowhere in the bible does your god address Christians, tis a jewish book.

God the son dominates the 'talking to Christians potion' of the first 4 book then after Acts 2 God the Holy spirit takes over. Then As the Spirit points out in the passage of 1tim 3:16-17 ALL of scripture is God breathed.
So yeah.. God does talk to Christians in the NT.

You can find all the bits where he orders murder or commits it itself but I will mention some of the highlights,

Ask for Christian examples sport.

The flood

wiped away an evil the world has never known since then.

Soddom
Gomorrah

was sent a prophet to warn people..

Abrahams son.

??? Ishmael lived. Isaac was never in any danger. God wanted Isaac to see the type of man he needed to be.

The Passover

No one was order to kill anyone

The Amalekites

where the ISIS/Somlie pirates of their day... Why not try some apples to apples comparesons.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html

Now jesus did quite a bit of threatening gods wrath in the new testament but this seems to be more like someone saying their dad is tougher than your dad.

Look it up, he was a git. (or written as a git by whoever made him up, really it makes no never mind whether he was an actual person or a figment, the results are the same)

and you d-bags wonder where I "Git" it from